After this afternoon's game sucked the life force out of me, I decided I had to look at the numbers and play out the remainder of the season via a quickie Excel spreadsheet.

More than happy to send this to anyone who wants to play along at home.

If the Sox continue to sputter (and you can see I wasn't exactly overly optimistic with the projections: eight wins, nine losses or 96-66) it all boils down to splitting the six games with Cleveland. Barring a total collapse elsewhere, we still win. Losing four of six to Cleveland brings a divisional tie and ugly tie-breakers into play if NY or OAK/CAL both get hot.

This puts things into perspective a bit, I think. If we can't beat the Tribe head to head, then we could very well be screwed, but otherwise, the road doesn't look too tough.

mantis1212

09-15-2005, 11:57 PM

let's try this...

If this scenario you put together actually plays out, I'll be bald by Oct 2nd.

HotelWhiteSox

09-16-2005, 12:24 AM

I also decided to do some math.

ESPNEWS (funny how they now show our highlights), showed our stats before Aug 1 and since, and said we lost 10 games off our lead in 46 games. So...I tried to set up an equation.

46/10 = 17/x

17 games left. X = games we will lose off our lead if the two teams continue at the same pace.

46x = 170
x = 3.7
We'll round to 4 for kicks

We have a 4.5 game lead, we win :redneck (waits for math majors to shell me). And this is only if the Sox play just a bit under .500 and the Indians lose a couple.

Nice stats by cheeses, that really puts things in perspective. The losing and lead looks bad (since it used to be so high), but this division is ours.

I know the Tribe has been hot, but I'm not that scared. They blew for the first portion of the season and an off day yesterday may start a cool down period. We've seen their pitchers, the problem is they've seen ours as well, I suppose (I liked him, but good thing Shingo is gone). I mean, this is baseball, these same Indians were swept by TB after they had won 6 in a row.

They've also been catching breaks too, e.g. taking Crosby out of that lineup makes things easier, and they've been doing what they're supposed to, picking on the Twins' minor league lineup and the rest of the AL Central.

ClaudelSleptHere

09-16-2005, 01:34 AM

I've been reading "if the Sox do so and so........." posts for about a month now, and they really don't make me feel any better, because the Sox never do "so and so." They do worse. I just want them to win the next game, and I hope that's how they are looking at it also.

BainesHOF

09-16-2005, 02:16 AM

Check out this site:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php

It says our chances are more than 80 percent that we'll win the division and more than 17 percent that we'll be the wild card team. Combined, we have a 98 percent chance of making the playoffs.

It looks like that's based on everyone's current winning percentage so I'd say those big-picture odds are off in our case with the way we're playing of late.

voodoochile

09-16-2005, 02:40 AM

They're 2% low... *******...

jabrch

09-16-2005, 08:27 AM

If the season ended today, we have a 100% chance of making the playoffs. Past that, BPs "precentages" don't mean ****.

"the post-season odds report was compiled by running a Monte Carlo simulation of the rest of the season"

It's a damn shame baseball games are played on a freaking Monte Carlo simulation. Cuz if it was, we could just end this thing now and go drown ourselves in sorrows, or drink ourselves into a celebreatory stupor. Sadly, Monte Carlo simulations are great for dice and cards, but worthless for baseball games. Fricking propellerheaded idots.
Expected winning percentages (EWP) for each team starts with their W3 and L3 from the Adjusted Standings. A regression is applied to derive the EWP for the rest of the season, which is going to be between the current winning
percentage and .500. To allow for uncertainty in the EWP, a normal
distribution centered on the EWP is randomly sampled, and that value is used
for the remainder of the season in that iteration. To simulate the normal 4%
home-field advantage, the home team gets a .020 point bonus, while the
visitors take a 0.020 penalty. The likelihood of winning each game is
determined by the log5 method (http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/playoff2002.htm).

I have an econ degree, and took both undergrad and grad level statistics. Frankly, this is complete crap. Anyone who thinks baseball outcomes can be regressed or randomly sampled, has never laced em up, or is totally fooling themselves.

soxjim

09-16-2005, 09:36 AM

[QUOTE=jabrch]If the season ended today, we have a 100% chance of making the playoffs. Past that, BPs "precentages" don't mean ****.

I agree. If we would go into Cleveland with this lead. We would of clinched the divison. Im trying to remain positive but its getting harder by yhe day.

1917

09-16-2005, 09:45 AM

Clevelands bogus schedule of Tampa and KC is what worries me...

Chez

09-16-2005, 09:55 AM

Who was it who said, "statistics are for losers?" Or, to quote Charlie Brown, "tell your statistics to shut up."

I guess the percentages failed to cheer me up.

Sad

09-16-2005, 10:00 AM

Clevelands bogus schedule of Tampa and KC is what worries me...

I'm just pondering the upcoming 6 games with Cleveland more so than who they are playing the rest of the time...

ks_8999

09-16-2005, 10:01 AM

That site simply contains the odds given a set of assumptions. It doesn't take into account streaks, strength of schedule, or even how good each team is now!

It is simply information, just like the "magic number".

larryepke

09-16-2005, 10:03 AM

Check out this site:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php

http://www.coolstandings.com/

Cool Standings has the Sox at 98.4% of making the playoffs. I like this site a lot and check it every day.

downstairs

09-16-2005, 10:05 AM

I have an econ degree, and took both undergrad and grad level statistics. Frankly, this is complete crap. Anyone who thinks baseball outcomes can be regressed or randomly sampled, has never laced em up, or is totally fooling themselves.

I think its a bit foolish to assume there is no way to predict the outcome of a game that relies on both chance and skill. Of course you can. In fact, there are methods out there that do a pretty amazing job of predicting entire seasons, year after year. And there are some methods which prove to be complete crap.

Anyway... I like this sort of method BP puts together because it does one thing that is very difficult to do in your head or jotting down on paper... it "plays" each team against each other. There are essentially 6 teams left fighting for 4 playoff spots in the AL. With 20 games each, that's some 120 games to decide everything. And within that, certain teams play each other and one has to win, etc. etc. etc.

A 4.5 game lead "means" different things depending on the schedule ahead for all teams. Hence, you'll see little discrepancies where a team has a slight lead in the standings over another, but actually has less of a chance to make the playoffs.

No one (well, no intelligent person) pretends that these percentages are set in stone. Its just a better guide than, say, games back and wins and losses.

Ol' No. 2

09-16-2005, 10:12 AM

I think its a bit foolish to assume there is no way to predict the outcome of a game that relies on both chance and skill. Of course you can. In fact, there are methods out there that do a pretty amazing job of predicting entire seasons, year after year. And there are some methods which prove to be complete crap.

Anyway... I like this sort of method BP puts together because it does one thing that is very difficult to do in your head or jotting down on paper... it "plays" each team against each other. There are essentially 6 teams left fighting for 4 playoff spots in the AL. With 20 games each, that's some 120 games to decide everything. And within that, certain teams play each other and one has to win, etc. etc. etc.

A 4.5 game lead "means" different things depending on the schedule ahead for all teams. Hence, you'll see little discrepancies where a team has a slight lead in the standings over another, but actually has less of a chance to make the playoffs.

No one (well, no intelligent person) pretends that these percentages are set in stone. Its just a better guide than, say, games back and wins and losses.They're complete BS for the simple reason that they never bother with such boring details as their margin of error, which generally turns out to be HUGE. It's like saying there's a 50% chance of rain with a margin of error of 50%.

downstairs

09-16-2005, 10:19 AM

They're complete BS for the simple reason that they never bother with such boring details as their margin of error, which generally turns out to be HUGE. It's like saying there's a 50% chance of rain with a margin of error of 50%.

I think everyone knows the margin of error, or should assume it. (First of all, the margin of error isn't that huge for the better methods... just look them up and see how well they do.) But they're not perfect, hence, no players actually get rings from winning in statistical projections.

But, we all "predict" anyway. Don't tell me you don't look at our 4.5 game lead, our schedule, and Cleveland's schedule and either become confident or worried?

So why not at least add a little more intelligence into the predictions?

Ol' No. 2

09-16-2005, 10:23 AM

I think everyone knows the margin of error, or should assume it. (First of all, the margin of error isn't that huge for the better methods... just look them up and see how well they do.) But they're not perfect, hence, no players actually get rings from winning in statistical projections.

But, we all "predict" anyway. Don't tell me you don't look at our 4.5 game lead, our schedule, and Cleveland's schedule and either become confident or worried?

So why not at least add a little more intelligence into the predictions?Most people assume wrong. The BP method would have predicted the Sox to win at least two from the Royals this week. They would have predicted they should have taken 2 from the Angels last week. How's those turn out?

downstairs

09-16-2005, 10:28 AM

Most people assume wrong. The BP method would have predicted the Sox to win at least two from the Royals this week. They would have predicted they should have taken 2 from the Angels last week. How's those turn out?

But, then, isn't it fair to use past performance to determine if a team "should" have won those games? Don't you feel that the KC losses were worse (in terms of games we should have won) than the LA games? (Of course, they all hurt to see.)

Are you saying that there is no mathematical way of saying that Tampa is worse than The White Sox? Saying, for example, that if Tampa just "tried harder" or something that they could beat the Sox 150 times in a 200 game series?

MsSoxVixen22

09-16-2005, 10:29 AM

Like alot of you have stated, the games against Cleveland are CRUCIAL. If the Sox loose those.....:whiner: it'll be over. They CAN'T give up! You know the Twinkies are gonna be hell bent on pounding on the Sox this weekend! They need to fight! And Garland better be bringing it tonite! I'm almost afraid to watch them tonite!

Harry Chappas

09-16-2005, 10:29 AM

Clevelands bogus schedule of Tampa and KC is what worries me...

Agreed. To make matters worse, the Yankees get to play a bunch of games against the Orioles and Jays.

ron_j_galt

09-16-2005, 12:13 PM

Most people assume wrong. The BP method would have predicted the Sox to win at least two from the Royals this week. They would have predicted they should have taken 2 from the Angels last week. How's those turn out?

That's misleading. Suppose the White Sox had a 65% chance of winning each game against the Royals. In that case, the chance of sweeping is about 27%, the chance of taking 2 is 44%, and the chance of doing worse is 29%. While the most likely outcome is "Sox win 2", a probability-based model certainly wouldn't have told you to bet your house on it, and just because it was "wrong" for one three-game sample doesn't mean it's useless.

downstairs

09-16-2005, 12:15 PM

That's misleading. Suppose the White Sox had a 65% chance of winning each game against the Royals. In that case, the chance of sweeping is about 27%, the chance of taking 2 is 44%, and the chance of doing worse is 29%. While the most likely outcome is "Sox win 2", a probability-based model certainly wouldn't have told you to bet your house on it, and just because it was "wrong" for one three-game sample doesn't mean it's useless.

Exactly! And to take it one step further... that's what "probability" means!! If there is a 99% chance of making the playoffs, it is still POSSBLE not to. If you don't make the playoffs, it doesn't make the previous 99% prediction "wrong". It just means you got the 1% part, not the 99% part.

The only time a projection is wrong is when someone says there is a 100% chance of something happening and it does not.

scottjanssens

09-16-2005, 12:26 PM

You're best off not mentioning statistics, and especially BP on this site. It's not a receptive audience. Nevermind that the Sox brass use these numbers. (As evidenced that Scott Riefert posted that BP link on his blog.)

The bathrooms for the scout seats are in the offices near a conference room. While I was waiting for my companion to return from the ladies room I listened to a scout give a presentation about various players in the Latin leagues and how they were reviewing them. The Sox apparently really like Equivalent Average.

WhiteSox12482

09-16-2005, 12:31 PM

I've been reading "if the Sox do so and so........." posts for about a month now, and they really don't make me feel any better, because the Sox never do "so and so." They do worse. I just want them to win the next game, and I hope that's how they are looking at it also.

I think Ozzie should steal from Jim Mora:

"Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. Are you kidding me? Playoffs?" snorted Colts coach Jim Mora. "I just hope we can win a game, another game."

--Former Head Coach of the Colts After they beaten by the 49ers:D:

I wish Ozzie would go on tirade like this.

WhiteSox12482

09-16-2005, 12:33 PM

The situation is actually pretty simple. How the Sox fare depends on what they do during the remaining 6 games with the Tribe, period.

The White Sox have 17 games remaining, the Tribe has 16.

The Sox are 88-57 and the Tribe is 84-62.

If the Sox can just split the 6 games against the Jndjans, that keeps the division lead static and takes 6 off the magic number, reducing it for the other remaining games to 7.

Assuming the Sox can split the 6 games, here's the chart for what the Sox could do and what Cleveland would have to do to tie them:

This puts things into perspective a bit, I think. If we can't beat the Tribe head to head, then we could very well be screwed, but otherwise, the road doesn't look too tough.

How about just taking it one game at a time, not worrying about Cleveland does at all. :cool:

bludupree

09-16-2005, 12:37 PM

That's misleading. Suppose the White Sox had a 65% chance of winning each game against the Royals. In that case, the chance of sweeping is about 27%, the chance of taking 2 is 44%, and the chance of doing worse is 29%. While the most likely outcome is "Sox win 2", a probability-based model certainly wouldn't have told you to bet your house on it, and just because it was "wrong" for one three-game sample doesn't mean it's useless.

I can't think of how to calculate the odds right now off the top of my head, but something seams flawed with this calculation. If the chance of the Sox taking 2 is 44% wouldn't that mean that the odds of KC taking 2 was 56%? The odds of the sox taking 2 of 2 with 65% chance per game is .65*.65 = .42 or 42%. 44% seems low to me. I would think it would be over 50%.

Nevermind...that is correct

WhiteSox12482

09-16-2005, 12:38 PM

Here are some odds: Scientfic Calculations, Remaning Schedule, Time of Day record calculated

White Sox winning=100% making the playoffs
White Sox losing=0 % making the playoffs

TDog

09-16-2005, 12:44 PM

Here are some odds: Scientfic Calculations, Remaning Schedule, Time of Day record calculated

White Sox winning=100% making the playoffs
White Sox losing=0 % making the playoffs

Well put. Most people around here seem to expect the Sox to lose. Growing up watching the Sox lose most of the time, I can understand how most fans might feel that way.

For what it's worth, th AP this week referred to the Indians' chances of overtaking the Sox as "slim."

ron_j_galt

09-16-2005, 12:44 PM

You're best off not mentioning statistics, and especially BP on this site. It's not a receptive audience. Nevermind that the Sox brass use these numbers. (As evidenced that Scott Riefert posted that BP link on his blog.)

The bathrooms for the scout seats are in the offices near a conference room. While I was waiting for my companion to return from the ladies room I listened to a scout give a presentation about various players in the Latin leagues and how they were reviewing them. The Sox apparently really like Equivalent Average.

Thanks for the heads-up. :smile: I'd gathered there wasn't too much interest in VORP and EQA and whatnot, but I figured probability was fairer game, since all that's really open to dispute is the exact chance of winning each game--the end result, as a poster mentioned above, doesn't purport to tell you if one thing's better or worse than another.

Regarding calculating taking two games, if the Sox and Royals played a two-game series, then you'd be correct with 42%. Since they played a three-game series, though, there's a possibility of a loss, and you can't just multiply through. When you're looking at a 2-of-3 (or 3-of-5, or 4-of-7) situation, you have to use binomial probability, which is explained here. (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html)

And the 100-0 thing is also correct... but that doesn't keep you occupied for very long if you're bored at work!

longshot7

09-16-2005, 01:34 PM

This is too confusing. Here's what I posted in another thread:

If the Indians win 2/3 of their remaining games (16), they'd have 95 wins.

The Sox have to only go 8-9 in their remaining 17 to finish with 96 wins.

We can do this. Gut check time.

Regardless of head-to-head, as long as we win 8, and the Indians don't win more than 11 of 16, we're fine. We could lose ALL the Indians h2h games, as long as we win 8 elsewhere and they lose 5 games, we're fine.

Lip Man 1

09-16-2005, 01:36 PM

Please stop with the advanced mathematics and calculus concerning baseball. It's very simple for the Sox...catch the friggin' ball, pitch the friggin ball and hit the friggin ball.

If they do they'll avoid the shame of blowing one of the biggest leads in the history of MLB, if they don't they'll have to live the rest of their lives with the stigma attached to it. Period.

If they stop looking like an uninspired, give a damn team they'll be playing in October (how well they do there is another matter but at least they will be there...) if they don't like Ozzie said they'll have reservations of the golf course in two weeks.

It's a human game, played by human's with human faults. That's something no set of equations can guarantee.

Right now 98% is not 100% and that's all I give a damn about after following these guys since April.

Lip

Ol' No. 2

09-16-2005, 01:48 PM

Exactly! And to take it one step further... that's what "probability" means!! If there is a 99% chance of making the playoffs, it is still POSSBLE not to. If you don't make the playoffs, it doesn't make the previous 99% prediction "wrong". It just means you got the 1% part, not the 99% part.

The only time a projection is wrong is when someone says there is a 100% chance of something happening and it does not.What you're overlooking is the effect of chance variations and the effects of large numbers of trials. Suppose team A has a 60% chance of winning against team B. Over a large number of games, one can expect team A to come pretty close to their statistical 60%. The effect of chance variations is small compared to the large number of games. But over a small number of games the contribution of chance variation is relatively large. Probabilities have virtually no predictive value for small numbers of cases.

mdep524

09-16-2005, 02:09 PM

Clevelands bogus schedule of Tampa and KC is what worries me... Why?? The Sox don't have to gain any ground on the Indians, they're 5 games up in the loss column! The Indians can win all their games for the rest of the season (except those with the Sox) and it won't affect the Sox!

Man, the attitude around here really stinks lately. I don't want to say it, but it is Cubs-like. Doomsday scenarios, constant fear, self pity, self fulfilling prophesies, actively looking for a way for the Sox to blow this. Then you've got the Trib reinforcing all this nonsense with two ridiculous choke/collapse artices on page 2 today.

Come on people! Get it together! Don't let this choke/collapse phenomenon get to you- its all made up! All the Sox have to do is win a few games and you'll see how silly all this was.

Do I want to see them play better baseball? Hell yes!! But look at things objectively- they control their own destiny.. and very comfortably! The Sox earned that right long ago in April and May. Don't forget that.

When the Sox clinch the AL Central next week I want fans to CELEBRATE, not breathe a sigh of relief, with the Tribune feeding off the negative energy. The Sox earned this. They're a good team with a good manager. They'll get it done.

Lip Man 1

09-16-2005, 02:14 PM

Mdep:

Like it or not the history of this franchise brings into clear relief why some (not all and perhaps even not most) of Sox fans are upset and uptight right now. I know, I know, the 'past' has no influence on today (which isn't quiet true... for example when dealing with world politics...) but it's hard for me to hope for the best when I can't point to something that has happened in the Sox past to 'show' me that they can pull it off.

They still have a 4 1/2 game lead at this moment in time which is important to remember, but one can't overlook the trend of the past six weeks.

You are right about one thing, all the Sox have to do is win some games. We'll all find out eventually how many and when soon enough.

Lip

Ol' No. 2

09-16-2005, 02:17 PM

Mdep:

Like it or not the history of this franchise brings into clear relief why some (not all and perhaps even not most) of Sox fans are upset and uptight right now. I know, I know, the 'past' has no influence on today (which isn't quiet true... for example when dealing with world politics...) but it's hard for me to hope for the best when I can't point to something that has happened in the Sox past to 'show' me that they can pull it off.

They still have a 4 1/2 game lead at this moment in time which is important to remember, but one can't overlook the trend of the past six weeks.

You are right about one thing, all the Sox have to do is win some games. We'll all find out eventually how many and when soon enough.

LipThe Sox lost 10.5 games in the standings in the last six weeks. Extrapolate that to the end of the season and they still win. I've seen people grasping at straws to find something positive, but I've never seen so many people grasping at straws to find something negative.:rolleyes:

santo=dorf

09-16-2005, 02:17 PM

Clevelands bogus schedule of Tampa and KC is what worries me...

It's not like Cleveland has dominated those two teams like the White Sox have dominated the Indians.

The D-Rays swept the Indians not too long ago.

Chez

09-16-2005, 02:18 PM

Please stop with the advanced mathematics and calculus concerning baseball. It's very simple for the Sox...catch the friggin' ball, pitch the friggin ball and hit the friggin ball.

If they do they'll avoid the shame of blowing one of the biggest leads in the history of MLB, if they don't they'll have to live the rest of their lives with the stigma attached to it. Period.

If they stop looking like an uninspired, give a damn team they'll be playing in October (how well they do there is another matter but at least they will be there...) if they don't like Ozzie said they'll have reservations of the golf course in two weeks.

It's a human game, played by human's with human faults. That's something no set of equations can guarantee.

Right now 98% is not 100% and that's all I give a damn about after following these guys since April.

Lip Amen, brother. Am I the only one who hears the ghost of Leo Durocher laughing at me?

Nellie_Fox

09-16-2005, 02:27 PM

I don't want to say it, but it is Cubs-like. Doomsday scenarios, constant fear, self pity, self fulfilling prophesies, actively looking for a way for the Sox to blow this. Ahh, the constantly shifting definition of Cubs fans, to reflect whatever we don't like at the moment.

The fact is that the constant definition of Cubs fans over the years hasn't been one of doom and gloom, but rather of irrational optimism, of a constant belief that "this is the year," of overrating the skills and potential of their players. Sox fans, on the other hand, have been more characterized as being constantly expecting everything to blow up in their face.

Please stop with the advanced mathematics and calculus concerning baseball. It's very simple for the Sox...catch the friggin' ball, pitch the friggin ball and hit the friggin ball.

If they do they'll avoid the shame of blowing one of the biggest leads in the history of MLB, if they don't they'll have to live the rest of their lives with the stigma attached to it. Period.

If they stop looking like an uninspired, give a damn team they'll be playing in October (how well they do there is another matter but at least they will be there...) if they don't like Ozzie said they'll have reservations of the golf course in two weeks.

Lip

Well, yeah, then there's that............

RMSoxFan

09-16-2005, 02:39 PM

Well said, Nellie.

As for the statement above that the Sox will still win if you extrapolate over the next 17 games, that is not entirely true. If you look at winning percentages (since the All-Star break Sox = .533, Tribe = .731), both teams are on pace for about 96.5 wins. (I know, impossible). However, over the past month it is even worse: Sox = .500, Tribe = .760. I'm not saying they're absolutely going to lose, just that this "In the bag" attitude is foolish. Bottom line, these recent trends need to change.

kaufsox

09-16-2005, 04:19 PM

Just got off the phone with my Dad in Vegas and he gave me a partial rundown of the odds on teams to win the World Series: (I believe he was in Bally's)

STL 9-5
BOS 7-2
White Sox 4-1
NY 5-1
CLE 12-1

So, the folks in Vegas still have the Sox looking pretty good and the Indians as a longshot. If the bookies are pretty optimistic, why shouldn't we be?

Nellie_Fox

09-16-2005, 04:26 PM

So, the folks in Vegas still have the Sox looking pretty good and the Indians as a longshot. If the bookies are pretty optimistic, why shouldn't we be?Bookies don't set the odds based on what they think is going to happen. They set the odds on what they think it will take to get the bets placed in the way that is more advantageous to them. They need to get the bets placed on each team to be fairly even, and apparently they aren't getting enough Cleveland action.

Flight #24

09-16-2005, 04:30 PM

Bookies don't set the odds based on what they think is going to happen. They set the odds on what they think it will take to get the bets placed in the way that is more advantageous to them. They need to get the bets placed on each team to be fairly even, and apparently they aren't getting enough Cleveland action.

That's actually quite surprising given the general sentiment that you hear in national media, etc. Lots of Tribe-fawning and "Sox out in the first....or missing the postseason" talk. Example: it was a major topic of conversation on Dan Patrick's show today.

I guess bettors aren't buying the Cleveland and "expert" hype.

RallyBowl

09-16-2005, 05:23 PM

.

34 Inch Stick

09-16-2005, 05:24 PM

[moderator edit]

I'm not sure what caused this caveman response from you, but the next one will get you permanently banned.

PaleHoseGeorge

09-16-2005, 05:28 PM

Two observations.

1.) Unlike the big popular teams, the Sox don't have a large fanbase to drive down the Vegas odds. Just look at the 5:1 numbers on the Yankees for proof.

2.) Having the third lowest odds of any team in MLB (behind only STL and defending champion Boston) is very impressive, especially with all the whining and fretting by disbelieving Sox Fans. If the whole world thought like these terminally confused clowns, Cleveland would be 4:1, not the Sox.

RallyBowl

09-16-2005, 05:30 PM

[moderator edit]

I'm not sure what caused this caveman response from you, but the next one will get you permanently banned.

:mg: .

4th Gen. Sox Fan

09-16-2005, 05:37 PM

Even though they havn't been playing great as of late, I like our chances of winning the division, remember it's the White Sox, they play in Chicago, how often do Chicago teams run away with their division (minus the Bulls of the 90's and the 85 Bears). They just want to make it interesting, which will result in a lot of people with grey hair, no hair, or heart attacks, but they'll win.

MRKARNO

09-16-2005, 05:42 PM

And no, I'm not talking about the writers. The Playoff Odds Report (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php)indicates that the White Sox have a 97% chance of making postseason play. The odds of winning the division have lowered to about 76%, whereas they had been much higher earlier. But then again, our WC odds have increased to make up for that entirely. Considering most of the people here would blast BP as being a "bunch of trolls," I think we need to consider this the bar of rationality on this site. It just goes to show how manic depressive this site can be at times. We're still probably making the playoffs. We're probably going to win the division. It should not have gotten to this point. It did. We're forced to deal with it. But the team may be better in the long run for having gone through this now, making the playoffs and possibly doing well in the playoffs. A World Series is not much less likely from today's standpoint than 15 games up in mid-August. Streaks are weird things. They dont always carry over from September to October and you can start new ones once you get to October (just ask Boston and their amazing streak out of nowhere and down 3-0). It wouldn't take much for Buehrle, Garland and Garcia to start pitching well again. Maybe their good and bad stretches just happened to coincide with one another.

ssirish317

09-16-2005, 05:56 PM

I love the Sox-o-gram on this page..."Your negative vibes are bumming me out. Stop whining and root for your team already....13!"

Wanne

09-16-2005, 06:12 PM

The way the Indians are playin....wouldn't be a bad idea to throw $100 down on 'em!

Nellie_Fox

09-17-2005, 02:00 AM

The way the Indians are playin....wouldn't be a bad idea to throw $100 down on 'em!I could never, no matter what, bet against the White Sox. Betting on the Jndjans is the same as betting against the Sox.

Betting against the Sox would mean I would somehow benefit from a Sox failure, and that would create such cognitive dissonance that I just might warp into another dimension.

santo=dorf

09-17-2005, 02:49 AM

[moderator edit]

I'm not sure what caused this caveman response from you, but the next one will get you permanently banned.

http://content.ytmnd.com//149000/149653/image.gif

"NOT COOL!!! Perhaps next time you should have done a little research."

:)

SouthSide_HitMen

09-17-2005, 02:57 AM

I could never, no matter what, bet against the White Sox. Betting on the Jndjans is the same as betting against the Sox.

Betting against the Sox would mean I would somehow benefit from a Sox failure, and that would create such cognitive dissonance that I just might warp into another dimension.

I bet $1,000 against the White Sox in 1993 vs. Toronto on a Vegas trip. I was still pretty pissed at JR for closing down Comiskey Park (which increased after the 1994 strike) and wasn't as into the team as I was before or after. I was a prior partial season ticket holder at the old park (went to many games under Veeck & JR in the 1970s / 1980s). I returned to the fold in the late 1990s and I don't think I would / could bet against them at this point. I didn't hate the team ever - I just wasn't buying tickets / spending a nickle on the team. I thought the Sox were too inexperienced and Toronto was the better team which in hindsight they were. I still rooted for the Sox but I didn't mind cashing the ticket (sort of like when you have Farve in a fantasy league - you still root against the Packers but if they win or Farve does well at least it wasn't a total loss).

You should never bet with your heart unless it is a few bucks. I do agree you shouldn't bet against a team you have an emotional investment. I still think the Sox are a pretty good bet - especially the First Round - this season. People aren't giving them the respect they earned and they have a good experienced staff and I think they will hit enough to win if they don't make the mistakes on the basepaths - they can't afford to give up outs.